Judge or AI Avatar? Questioning the Role of Algorithms in Courtrooms

Nadia Ahmad

Nawel Ben Sassi

 

Abstract: As artificial intelligence permeates every sphere of life, it is no surprise that it has also entered the heart of courtrooms to reduce case backlogs and structural inefficiencies. Courts stand at the brink of the era of ‘smart justice’, where artificial intelligence promises to transform the legal system. This article questions whether judicial decisions can be written in code without compromising fundamental principles of fairness, transparency, and reasoned judgments. After outlining the conceptual foundations of AI applications in the judiciary, this article argues that the risks posed by deploying AI tools in courtrooms arise at two different stages: judges’ initial interaction with AI systems and the AI-generated results. Judicial interaction with AI fosters overreliance and establishes algorithmic authority, which subtly constrains judicial independence. After analysing these concerns, the authors explore the risks embedded within the structure of AI systems, giving rise to bias, hallucinations, and opacity. This article relies on documented experiences from various jurisdictions to demonstrate that these risks are not only hypothetical but have occurred in various forms. The analysis then extends to a wider level to demonstrate how these aspects lead to public scepticism towards algorithmic justice, eroding trust in the legal system that these technological tools purport to transform. The authors conclude that although AI could lead to greater efficiency and better resource allocation, the existing deficiencies make its deployment at the core of the judgment-making process incompatible with fundamental rights and judicial values. Until principled regulation, robust institutional safeguards, and AI literacy strategies are implemented, the role of AI in the courtroom should be limited to routine tasks.